mr. president, the need for real campaign finance reform must happen and it must happen as soon as possible. and that is why clearly we must overturn through a constitutional amendment this disastrous citizens united supreme court decision as well as the buckley v. vallejo decision. that's why we need to pass disclosure legislation which will identify all those wealthy individuals who make large campaign contributions. but more importantly, it is why we need to move toward public funding of elections. our vision for american democracy, our vision for the united states of america should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can

participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful. every member of the senate, every member of the house knows how much time candidates spend on the telephone dialing for dollars. republicans, democrats everybody. this is not what democracy should be about. our vision for the future of this country should be one in which candidates are not telling billionaires at special forums what they can do for them. our vision for democracy should be one in which candidates are speaking to the vast majority of our people, working people, the middle class low-income people, the elderly the children, the sick and the poor, and discuss

with them their ideas as to how we can improve lives for all people in this country. mr. president, let us be frank. let us be honest. the current political campaign finance system is corrupt and amounts to legalized bribery. how can we in the united states tell developing countries how they can go forward in developing their democracies when our system is corrupt? our vision for the future of this country should be a vision which is inclusive which tells young people if you're conservative you're a progressive, you're interested in public service, you can run for office without begging the rich and the powerful for campaign contributions. mr. president, when congress returns after the august break i will be introducing strong

legislation which calls for public funding of elections. public funding of elections which will enable any candidate regardless of his or her political views to run for office without being beholden to the rich and the powerful. i hope very much that the republican leadership in the senate will allow this legislation to get to the floor. i hope that we can have a serious debate about it. and i hope very much that we can go forward to restoring american democracy to a situation in which every citizen of this country has the right to vote and has equal power in determining the future of our great nation. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

mrs. feinstein: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: mr. president i would like to speak today in support of the cybersecurity information sharing act. i had hoped that senator burr, the chairman of the committee would be able to deliver the remarks initially. however, he's been, unfortunately, delayed and so i will go ahead with my remarks as vice chairman of the committee. mr. president, there really is no legislative or administrative step we can take that will end all cyber crime and cyber warfare. but as members of the senate intelligence committee we've heard over the course of several

years now that improving the exchange of information and the sharing of that information company to company and company to the government can be very helpful p and yield a real and significant improvement to cybersecurity. regrettably, this is the third attempt to pass a cybersecurity information-sharing bill. in the almost five years that i've been working on this issue two things have become abundantly clear about passing a bill. first, it must be bipartisan. in 2012, i cosponsored the lieberman-collins cybersecurity act which included a title on information sharing based on a bill i'd introduced. it was an important piece of legislation, but it received almost no republican support and could not gain the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.

it became clear to me then that no cybersecurity legislation could pass without broad bipartisan support. the second lesson that's been learned is that it must be narrowly focused. the lieberman-collins bill sought to address many critical challenges to our nation's cybersecurity. then-majority leader harry reid brought the chairman of all committees of jurisdiction on our side together and asked them to draft legislation to improve security in their areas. it soon became clear that addressing so many complex issues makes a bill very difficult to pass. that bill died on the senate floor in late 2012. based on these lessons we've tried to take a bipartisan and focused approach so that congress could pass a cybersecurity information-sharing bill.

in the last congress, in 2013 and 2014, then-vice chairman of the intelligence committee saxby chambliss and i set out to draft legislation on information sharing that would attract bipartisan support. we worked through a number of difficult issues together and we were able to produce a bill that i believed would pass the senate. the intelligence committee approved the bill in 2014 by a strong bipartisan vote of 12-3. but it never reached the senate floor due to privacy concerns about the legislation. this year chairman burr and i have drafted legislation that both sides can and should support. this bill is bipartisan. it is narrow, narrowly focused. and it puts in place a number of privacy protections many of which i will outline shortly.

the bill's bipartisan vote of 14-1 in the senate intelligence committee in march underscores this fact. i'd like to thank senator burr for his leadership and his willingness to negotiate a bipartisan bill that can and should receive a strong vote. as he often said and says, neither one of us would have written this bill this way if we were doing it ourselves. i believe it is also true that by negotiating this draft, we will get substantially more votes than either of us could get on our own. i very much hope that that also is true. i want to note now that this bill has strong support from the private sector. because it creates incentives for improving cybersecurity and it protects companies who take

responsible steps to do so. companies are shielded from lawsuits if they properly use the authorities provided for in this bill, and they can be confident that sharing information with other companies or with the government will not subject them to inappropriate regulatory action. for these reasons this bill has the support of over 40 business groups, and it's the first bill that has the support of the chamber of commerce. it also has the support of the most important cybersecurity and critical infrastructure companies in the nation. mr. president, i'd like to have those letters entered into the record if i may. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thanks, mr. president. at the same time, the bill includes numerous privacy protections beyond those

contained in last year's bill. senator burr and i worked together to address the specific concerns raised by the administration. some of our senate colleagues and other key stakeholders. because of these changes the administration said yesterday that -- and i quote -- "cybersecurity is an important national security issue and the senate should take up this bill as soon as possible and pass it." i believe this is a good bill and will allow companies and the government to improve the security of their computer networks. but this is just a first-step bill. it won't bring an end to successful cyber attacks or thefts but it will help to address the problem. now what does this bill do? it provides clear direction for the government to share cyber

threat information and defensive measures with the private sector. two, it authorizes private companies to monitor their computer networks and to share cyber threat information and defensive measures with other companies and with the federal state, local and tribal governments. and, three it creates a process and rules to limit how the federal government will and won't use the information it receives. companies are granted liability protection for the appropriate monitoring for cyber threats and for sharing and receiving cyber threat information. this liability protection exists for both company-to-company sharing as well as company-to-government sharing consistent with the bill's terms.

companies are also authorized to use defensive measures on their own networks for cybersecurity purposes. since the bill is complicated let me describe what the bill does in more detail. first, it recognizes that the federal government has information about cyber threats that it can and should share with the private sector and with state, local and tribal governments. the bill requires the director of national intelligence to put in place a process that will increase the sharing of information on cyber threats already in the government's hands with the private sector and help protect an individual or a business. importantly, as a first order of business, there will be a managers' amendment which makes changes to specifically limit

the ways that the government can use the cybersecurity information it receives. this amendment was distributed on friday, and i'd like to urge everyone to look at it because under the amendment this bill can only be used to -- for cybersecurity purposes. no others. it is not a surl bill it is strictly related to cybersecurity. the bill previously allowed the government to use the information to investigate and assess penalties. that has drawn substantial opposition and we have removed it in the managers' package. i would like now to take a minute to go over some of the privacy protections in the bill.

the bill is strictly voluntary. it doesn't require companies to do anything they choose not to do. there's no requirement to share information with another company or with the government, and the government cannot compel any sharing by the private sector. it is completely voluntary. two, it narrowly defines the term "cyber threat indicator." given the amount of information that can be shared under the bill. companies that do not share information under this bill unless it is specifically about a cyber threat or cyber defense, nothing else. the authorizations are clear but limited. companies are the fully authorized to do three things.

monitor their networks or provide monitoring services to their customers to identify cyber threats. use limited defensive measures to protect against cyber threats on the networks. and to share and receive information with each other and with federal state and local governments. there are mandatory steps companies must take before sharing any cyber threat information with other companies or the government to review the information for irrelevant privacy information. in other words the company must do a privacy scrub and they are required to remove any personal information that's found. companies cannot, as it has been alleged simply hand over customer information. the bill requires that the

attorney general establish mandatory guidelines to protect privacy for any information the government receives. these guidelines will be public and they will include consultation with the private sector prior to them being put together. the bill requires them to limit how long the government can retain any information and provide notification and a process to destroy mistakenly shared information. it also requires the attorney general to create sanctions for any government official who does not follow these mandatory privacy guidelines. the department of homeland security not telescope department of defense -- not the department of defense or the intelligence community is the primary recipient of cyber

information. in the managers' amendment we strengthen the role that the department of homeland security has and how the sharing will take place. once the managers' amendment is adopted, the bill will restrict the government's use of voluntarily shared information. so the government cannot use this information for law enforcement purposes unrelated to cybersecurity and cyber crime. the bill limits liability protection to monitoring for cyber threats and sharing information about them, and only -- and only if a company complies with the bill's privacy requirement. the bill explicitly excludes protection for gross negligence or willful misconduct.

above and beyond these mandatory protections, there are a number of oversight mechanisms in the bill including reports by heads of agencies, inspector generals -- inspectors general. in sum, the bill allows for strictly voluntary sharing of cybersecurity information and many layers of privacy protections. it is my understanding that the chairman of our committee is here now, and so i would like to skip to the conclusion of my remarks and then be able to turn this over to him. i see him there. mr. president, the house of representatives has already passed two bills this year to

improve cybersecurity information sharing. the intelligence committee has crafted a carefully balanced bill that passed by a 14-1 vote in march and has improved significantly since then through the managers' amendment. we very much need to take this first step on cybersecurity to address the almost daily reports of hacking and cyber threats. so i very much hope that the senate will take action now and now i will yield the floor and i want to thank the chairman. it really has been a pleasure mr. chairman, to be able to work with you and i think i speak with every -- for every member of the committee and i'm very pleased we have this bill on the floor and god willing and the members willing we will be able to pass it one day. so if i may i'll yield the floor to the chairman of the intelligence committee. the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

mr. burr: mr. president, i want to thank my good friend and vice chair of the intelligence committee senator feinstein. she has been in the trenches working on cybersecurity legislation longer than i have, and her passion is displayed in the product that's come out. there's been no person more outspoken on privacy than dianne feinstein. there's no person who has been more outspoken on the need for us to get this right than senator feinstein. daily she and i look at some of the most sensitive intelligence information that exists in this country, and we're charged as a committee, 15 individuals out of a body of a hundred to provide the oversight to an intelligence community to make sure they live within the

letters of the law or the boundaries set by executive order. and every day we try to fulfill that job. we're sometimes tasked with producing legislation and that's why we're here today with the cybersecurity bill. it's been referred to that we're here because o.p.m. got hacked. no. we're here because the american people's data is in jeopardy if government doesn't help to find a way to minimize the loss. so where is the threat? the threat's to business, it's to government, and it's to individuals. there's no part of america that's left out of this. the legislation we're proposing affects everybody in this country, big and small business state and federal government individuals no matter where they live or how much they're worth. and i think it's safe to say that business and government

have both been attacked and they've been penetrated and data has been lost. in some cases that intent was criminal in some cases the intent was nation states. it was towards credit cards on one side or social security numbers and on the other side it was plans for the next military platform or intellectual property that was owned by a company. but we're where we are. and now we have a proposal as to how we minimize. let me emphasize this. you heard it from the vice chairman. this bill does not prevent cyber attacks. i'm not sure that we could craft anything that would do that. what this bill does is for the first time it allows us a pathway to minimize the data that's lost and empowering

government once they get the pertinent information to push out to the rest of business and individuals and to governments here's the type of attack that's happening, here's the tool that they're using here's the defensive mechanism you can put on your system that provides you comfort that they can't penetrate you and provides the company comfort that has been attacked that we're able to minimize in real time the amount of data that's lost. so as the vice chairman said, these are key points on this piece of legislation. it is voluntary. there's no entity in america that's forced to report. it is a purely voluntary system. and to have participation in a voluntary system you have to listen to the folks who are the subjects of these attacks as to what they need to act in real time and to provide pertinent data. it is an information sharing

bill. it is not a surveillance bill. i say to those that have characterized it that way we've done everything we can to clarify it with the managers' amendment that there is no surveillance. the only thing we're after is minimizing the loss of data that exists. but here's how it works and i want to break it into three categories. this bill covers private-to-private. it says that if i'm a private company and my i.t. system gets hacked and i get penetrated, i can automatically pick up the phone and call the i.t. people at my competitor's business and we're protected under antitrust that we can carry out a conversation so that i can figure out if they got hacked and if they did but they didn't get penetrated what software did they have on their system that secured their data and i can immediately go and put that on my system. and i can minimize the loss of

any additional data. so we protect for that private-to-private conversation only for the purposes of sharing cyber information. private-to-government. we allow any company in real time at the same time they're talking to a competitor, to transmit electronically the pertinent data that it takes to do the forensics of what happened what tool did they use. they can transfer that to government and they're protected from a liability standpoint for the transfer of that. the vice chairman got into all of this so i don't want to rehash it, with the correct protections of personal data, the company is required not to send personal data. any government agency that's a recipient of this data is required to go through if they see information is not relevant to determine what kind of response, they have to

minimize that data so it's not released. in addition, we have government-to-private, the third leg. it amazed me that the government didn't have the authority to push out a lot of information. and what we do is empower now government to analyze the attack to determine the tool that was used to find the most appropriate defensive software mechanism and then -- mechanism and say broadly there's an attack that's happened in america, this is the tool they've used and this is the defensive mechanism that protects your data at your company. now, if you ask me, i think this is what we're here for. this is what the congress of the united states is supposed to do. to facilitate through minor tweaks voluntary participation to close the door and minimize potential loss.

that's all we're attempting to do. i want to loop back to where the vice chairman was. we're now to the point where we're asking unanimous consent to come to the floor and actually take up this bill. and by moving to the bill, it allows our colleagues to come to the floor with relevant amendments to the bill where they can be debated and voted on. i actually believe, vice chairman if we could do that now, we could process this entire bill and all the amendments that are relevant by this time tomorrow. now, it would mean we'd have to work and we'd have to talk and we'd have to vote, but we could do it. because i think when we look at the -- at the array of relevant amendments they're pretty well-defined. some of them are duplications of others that people have planned to talk about. but to suggest that this is a

problem, which it is, we've seen it with over 22 million government workers whose personal data and in some cases the most sensitive data because of the forms that they had to fill out for security clearance have gotten out of the o.p.m. system. just because o.p.m. wasn't the last one don't think sony wasn't serious. don't think attacks that don't require credit card information aren't serious. what we're attempting to do is to minimize the degree of that loss and all we need is the cooperation of every member of the senate to say "i'm willing to move to the bill. i'm willing to bring up amendments relevant amendments, willing to debate them and willing to vote on them." process is where we are. now, at the end of the day we can determine whether this is a

bill that's worthy to move on. it's not the end of the road because once we get through in the united states senate, we've got to conference the bill with the house of representatives. and as the vice chairman pointed out, they've produced multiple pieces of legislation. it's the senate that's now holding us back. i would urge my colleagues, let's agree to move to the bill. let's agree to relevant amendments. and let's process this cybersecurity bill so that when we come back from august, we can actually sit down with our colleagues in the house conference the bill and provide the american people with a little bit of security knowing we're going to minimize the amount of data that's lost because of a voluntary program between the private sector and with government. i think the vice chairman shares my beliefs that we're not scared to have a debate on relevant

amendments on this. we understand there's more views than just ours. but we've got fo get on the bill to be able to offer amendments to be able to share what we know that might not necessarily support the amendment. and right now we're sort of frozen because we can't offer amendments including the managers' amendment which i would say to my colleagues -- and the vice chairman said this in a very specific way -- if you'll read the managers' amendment, a lot of concerns that people have will vanish. nobody will call it a surveillance bill because we've addressed the things that people were concerned with. though we didn't think they were problems before, we've clarified it in a way that it's limited only to cybersecurity. i could make a tremendous case that through the cybersecurity forensic process if we found another criminal act that the american people would probably

want that reported. mr. mccain: would the senator yield for a question? mr. burr: be happy to yield for a question. mr. mccain: in light of recent events that dominated the news, including the breach of millions of americans' privileged information which could be in ways used against them to harm them, do you think it's a good idea for the senate to go out into a month-long recess without at least having debates and votes and amendments on this issue? does the senator know of a really an issue that right now impacts the lives of everyday americans such as this threat of cyber attacks on the citizens of the united states? mr. burr: i thank the senator for the question and i think he knows the answer. we should dispose of this. and the easiest way as i shared earlier, is that if we get on this bill and we process amendments if we really wanted to, we could finish tomorrow.

the reality is that this doesn't take a long time to debate amendments, to vote on amendments and to be done. at the end of the day every member would have to make a decision as to whether they're supportive or against the bill but not getting on the bill cheats the american people. mr. mccain: i'd just ask one more question. it's obvious that the senator from california and you have worked very closely together on this issue. the two leaders on intelligence now for a number of years. wouldn't it seem logical that with a bipartisan piece of legislation that addresses an issue, i guess my question is: how many americans have been affected most recently by cyber attacks? and what would this legislation do to try to prohibit that from happening again? and don't we have some obligation to the try to address the vulnerabilities of average american, everyday

citizens? mr. burr: i think the answer is there have been million americans whose private data has been breached for numerous reasons. and the senator from arizona is correct, we have an obligation to do what we can to minimize that loss. mr. mccain: isn't this a bipartisan product? mr. burr: this is very much a bipartisan bill. i think it is a bicameral effort. it's not like this is in limbo the house is already out there. i implore to my colleagues let us work on the bill, let's offer relevant amendments and let's process those amendments as quickly as we can and i think we can accommodate both the need to leave for august and go see the people we're married to and get away from the people we see every day who influence us in

numerous ways. i'm speaking of the senator from arizona right now. i know he's anxious to go somewhere other than here. but to process this bill is to do our work. to not get on the bill, to not offer amendments is to ignore the responsibilities that we finally say to the senator from north carolina, i appreciate the hard work that you and the senator from california have put in on this issue. it has been said by our military leaders that right now one of our greatest vulnerabilities to national security is the possibility or likelyhood of cyber attacks and the implications of that far exceed that invasion of someone's privacy. so i want to thank you and the senator from california for your hard work on this and i think it at least deserves debate and amendments and hopefully we can pass it before we go out for the

recess. mr. burr: i thank the senator from arizona who has worked closely with us since the beginning to try to move this bill together. hopefully at our lunches today we'll have an opportunity to talk to our members in hopes that we can come back from lunch and we can get started on this bill. mr. president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. burr: with with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak for up to ten minutes recognizing that it's after 12:30. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president. in november 2013, the united states and five global powers, the p-5 plus 1 announced an interim deal to freeze iran's nuclear program and negotiate a

diplomatic resolution to one of the most challenging issues affecting global security. since then, as a member of the senate armed services and foreign relations committees, i participated in scores of hearings classified briefings meetings and calls about this topic in virginia, washington, and during five trips to the middle east, including two trips to israel. i've listened to the administration to allies and -- in the middle east and elsewhere, to current and former senate colleagues, especially former armed services chairman john warner and carl levin to national security and foreign policy experts to critics and proponents of the deal, to american military leaders and troops and also to my constituents. i helped write the iran nuclear agreement review act under which congress is currently engaging in a 60-day review period to approve or disapprove of the suspension of congressional

sanctions as part of the final dual announced july 15 -- final deal announced july 15. based on my review of this matter i acknowledge everything has risks with upside and down side conclusions. i conclude that the joint comprehensive plan of action is a dramatic improvement over the status quo in improving global security for the next 15 years and likely longer. in this deal america has honored its best traditions and shown that patient diplomacy can achieve what isolation and hostility cannot. for this reason, i will support the deal. prior to the interim negotiation in november of 2013 and even in the face of a punishing international sanctions regime, iran's nuclear program was marching ahead. iran had amassed more than 19,000 centrifuges fo enrich uranium and that number was

growing. iran had produced more than 1 # 1,000 kilograms of enriched uranium and that was growing. iran was constructing a heavy water facility in iraq capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium and iran only allowed limited access to its declared nuclear facilities and shielded the operation and inspection of covert nuclear sites. the program when diplomacy began was months away from being able to produce enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. as israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu told the united nations in 2012, -- quote -- "for over seven years the international community has tried sanctions with iran under the leadership of president obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date. it's had an effect on the

economy, but we must face the truth. sanctions have not stopped iran's nuclear program." we must face the truth. a punishing sanctions regime did not stop iran's nuclear program. the nuclear program will only stop by a diplomatic agreement or by military action. and while military action has to be an option, it is in america's interest and the interest of the entire world to use every effort to find a diplomatic resolution. in fact, that was the purpose of the iranian sanctions to begin with to open a path to a diplomatic solution. we now have a diplomatic solution on the table. the jcpoa is not perfect because all parties made concessions as is the case in any serious diplomatic negotiation. but it has gained broad international support because it prevents iran from getting

sufficient uranium for a bomb for at least 15 years. it also stops any pathway to a plutonium weapon for that period and it exposes iranian covert activity to enhance scrutiny by the international community forever. under the deal, iran does the following: it affirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. it reduces the quantity of centrifuges by northern two-thirds. -- by more than two-thirds. it slashes uniform stockpile by 97% to 300 kilograms for 15 years. this is dramatically less than what would iran, iran would need to produce even a single nuclear weapon. it caps the enrichment level of the remaining uranium stockpile at 3.67%. it recon figures the iraq reactor so that it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium. it commits to a series of limitations on r&d activities to

guarantee that any nuclear program will be for exclusively peaceful purposes in full compliance with international nonproliferation rules. and finally iran agrees to a robust set of international inspections of its declared nuclear facilities, its entire uranium supply chain and its suspected covert facilities by a team of more than 130 international inspectors. after year 15 the unique caption requirements imposed on iran are progressively lifted through year 2025. after year 25, iran is obligated to abide by all international nonproliferation treaty requirements including the extensive inspections required by the protocol and its agreement that it will never seek develop or acquire any nuclear weapons continues forever. mr. president, if iran breaks this agreement nuclear sanctions can be reimposed. the united states reserves the right to sanction iran for

activities unrelated to its nuclear program including support for terrorism arms shipments and human rights violations. finally and importantly the u.s. and our partners maintain the ability to use military action if iran seeks to obtain a nuclear weapon in violation of the deal. the knowledge of the iranian program gained through extensive inspections will improve the effectiveness of any military action and the clarity of iran's commitment to the world in the first paragraph of the agreement that it will never pursue nuclear weapons will make it easier to gain international support for military action should iran violate their unequivocal pledge. this deal does not solve all outstanding issues with an adversarial regime. in that sense it's similar to the nuclear test ban treaty that president kennedy negotiated with the soviet union in the midst of the cold war. iran's support for terrorism remains a major concern and we must increase efforts with our

regional allies to counter those malign activities. but at the end of the day this agreement is not about making an ally out of an adversary. it is about denying an adversary a path to obtaining nuclear weapons. this deal takes a nuclear weapons program that was on the verge of success and disables it for many years through peaceful diplomatic means with sufficient tools for the international community to verify whether iran is meeting its commitments. i hope this resolution might open the door to diplomatic discussion of other tough issues with iran. in conclusion, mr. president monitoring this agreement and countering iran's nonnuclear activity will require great diligence by the u.s., our allies and the iaea. and there will be important role for congress in this important work. i look forward to working with my colleagues on measures to guarantee close supervision and

enforcement of this deal. that work will be arduous but it is far preferable to allowing iran to return to a march toward nuclear weapons. it is also far preferable to any other alternative including war. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.

remarks in president obama yesterday when he unveiled a major climate change proposal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas as. the president as. the president's plan to establish his first ever national standards to limit carbon pollution from u.s. power plants. [applause] that is so cool to be able to do that. i am the appetizer. the dinner awaits. but hi, everybody. this is really such an incredibly wicked cool moment. [laughter] standing right now the word proud dozen even come close to describing how i feel. it means a lot to the chance to thank all of you, everyone who has worked so hard and waited so long for this very day to come. [applause]

looking around this room i know many of you have been fighting this fight for a long time. and since the beginning and we have been there together. we may be too old by not remember just how long that is but it hasn't pampered our enthusiasm for our passion. we have talked for years about what needs to be done, what we could do. we've gotten a good understanding of how it can get done and while today we are actually doing it. [applause] >> you know, the road has been long but we have come awfully far. look at how many new faces have joined in this fight. as president obama will no doubt tell you, climate change is one of the most important issues that we face as a country and as citizens of this world. it affects everything we know

and everyone would love. our kids, our communities, our ability to earn a decent living. it impacts our health, safety and our livelihoods. but one thing is crystal clear. acting on climate has become what it is a moral responsibility. and thankfully no leader anywhere has understood that better articulate that more forcefully and our president. and no one has led on this issue as fearlessly as he has. from day one he saw climate change for what it was, through to our core american values families communities and safeguarding those who are most vulnerable. he did not back down from the challenge. because of his leadership and his of trust and the great people at the epa to get the job done right, and they got the job done right.

[applause] >> we now have a real shot at protecting this beautiful planet of ours. so this is a historic moment. we are forging and to do what's right for our kids, and there is no turning back. and i'm confident that the huge step forward were taking today will show the world just what's possible and he will encourage companies -- countries across the globe to join in this fight. because climate change is a challenge we can conquer together. i am -- thank you. [applause] >> i just couldn't be happier that we have the right person leading the charge for us. so with that i am honored i am humbled, and i'm proud to introduce our president barack obama. [applause]

>> thank you, everybody. thank you so much. everybody, please have a seat. thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. everybody have a seat. thank you. well, good afternoon, everybody. >> good afternoon. >> gina, i want to thank you not just for the introduction but for the incredible work that you and your team have been doing not just on this issue but on generally making sure that we've got clean air, clean water a great future for our kids. i want to thank all the members of congress who are here, as well, who have been fighting this issue, and sometimes at great odds with others but are

willing to take on what is going to be one of the key challenges of our lifetimes and future generations. i want to thank our surgeon general who's just been doing outstanding work and is helping to make the connection between this critical issue and the health of our families. over the past six and a half years, we've taken on some of the toughest challenges of our time, from rebuilding our economy after a devastating recession, to ending our wars in iraq and afghanistan and bringing almost all of our troops home, to strengthening our security through tough and principled diplomacy. but i am convinced that no challenge poses a greater threat to our future and future generations than a changing climate. and that's what brings us here today.

now, not everyone here is a scientist but some of you are among the best scientists in therld. and what you and your colleagues have been showing us for years now is that human activities are changing the climate in dangerous ways. levels of carbon dioxide, which heats up our atmosphere, are higher than they've been in 800,000 years, 2014 was the planet's warmest year on record. and we've been setting a lot of records in terms of warmest years over the last decade. one year doesn't make a trend but 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have fallen within the first 15 years of this century. climate change is no longer just about the future that we're predicting for our children or our grandchildren. it's about the reality that we're living with every day,

right now. the pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. while we can't say any single weather event is entirely caused by climate change, we've seen stronger storms, deeper droughts longer wildfire seasons. charleston and miami now flood at high tide. shrinking ice caps forced national geographic to make the biggest change in its atlas since the soviet union broke apart. over the past three decades, nationwide asthma rates have more than doubled, and climate change puts those americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital. as one of america's governors has said we're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something

about it. and that's why i committed the united states to leading the world on this challenge, because i believe there is such a thing as being too late. most of the issues that i deal with, and i deal with some tough issues that cross my desk, by definition, i don't deal with issues if they're easy to solve because somebody else has already solved them. and some of them are grim. some of them are heartbreaking. some of them are hard. some of them are frustrating. but most of the time, the issues we deal with are ones that are temporally bound and we can anticipate things getting better if we just kind of plug away at it, even incrementally. but this is one of those rare

issues, because of its magnitude, because of its scope that if we don't get it right we may not be able to reverse, and we may not be able to adapt sufficiently. there is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change. [applause] now, that shouldn't make us hopeless. it's not as if there's nothing we can do about it. we can take action. over the past several years america has been working to use less dirty energy, more clean energy, waste less energy throughout our economy. we've set new fuel economy standards that mean our cars will go twice as far on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade.

combined with lower gas prices, these standards are on pace to save drivers an average of $700 at the pump this year. we doubled down on our investment in renewable energy. we're generating three times as much wind power, 20 times as much solar power as we did in 2008. these steps are making a difference. over the past decade, even as our economy has continued to grow the united states has cut our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on earth. that's the good news. [applause] but i am here to say that if we want to protect our economy and our security and our children's -- >> update by top secret advisor regarding the wildfires plaguing the american west. yesterday the national

preparedness level was raised to for which means three or more areas, elevated, including more resources. currently there are 27 large uncontained active fires nearly 37,000 total pfizer been reported in 14000 personnel including state and federal jurisdiction's who are assigned to this includes 108 helicopters and 22 air tankers that are unavailable to fight the fires. the president is asked to stay in close touch with governors and local officials. the white house will closely monitor the situation from your. on behalf of the white house and the american people we want to extend our gratitude to the brave men and women are battling these fires. isthese are selfless individuals and we owe a debt of gratitude.

secondly, just wanted to get an update on the president scheduled for later this week. on thursday the present will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act, joined the board of -- [inaudible] each of us deserve a voice in our government. they present participate in a video teleconference with the citizens nationwide and he will be joined by attorney general loretta lynch and united states congressman john lewis along with advocates who worked to strengthen and protect americans rights to vote. as the president said in some of the voting rights act one of the crowning achievements in our democracy and its our responsibly to honor the sacrifice of so many risks so much by protecting the loss. that's why the president will take time to discuss this important issue on thursday. the event will be live stream on the white house website. we will have more information about the event later this week.

with that darlene, let's go to your questions. >> the meeting this afternoon the president is having with -- [inaudible] i was wondering if the timing of it was arranged so that he is meeting with virtually followed the israeli prime minister's webcast? >> i can tell you that this event for this meeting has been in the works for at least several days. ..

he will make clear this is an agreement that is not built on trust but rather built on the most interest is that an inspection of her imposed on the country's nuclear program and there'll be an an opportunity for those in the meeting to ask questions directly to the president. they'll have an opportunity to make clear the concerns they have been to ask questions about the details of the agreement and the president will be there to answer questions. we will at the conclusion of the meeting provide you with a list of those who participated. you will examine for yourself the diverse composition of opinion included in the meeting.

did i go on too long? i probably did. i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to answer your questions. >> the question of whether the meeting -- [inaudible] >> i would say prime minister benjamin met yahoo! has had ample opportunity to make public his fears that the negotiation. you will recall i guess about five months ago now he spoke to a joint session of the united states congress carried live on television here in the united states. today his team has a webcast to make his views known. it is clear you to build himself up for variety of opportunities to make clear what his views are. the president obviously has his

own views as well. the prime minister had ample opportunity to make clear what his views already taken advantage of the opportunity. the president as you've heard them say will make clear he believes the effort to prevent iran from a nuclear weapon isn't just in the best interest of the united states. the president believes in the national security interests of our closest ally to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomacy and that is to be the president has made clear in public to all of you and that he will reiterate in the context of his meeting with leaders in the american jewish community later this evening. [inaudible] to the president put himself in a position where he will make questions on the iran deal and

considered to be town hall -- about the agreement? certainly an intriguing idea. obviously another 45 or 50 days the congress has to continue this agreement which meant another 45 or 50 days for the president to make public his case about why he believes this sort of agreement is in the best interest of the united states and the best way to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. the president has taken questions in a variety of settings on this topic. today after announcing the agreement he took questions from all of you in the east room for many of you east room. i guess maybe the jury is still out on that one. there is no doubt the people in this room have been following this issue as closely as anyone and all of you have access to

information to evaluate and early on in the process spending more than an hour answering questions to discuss this. i would rule out future public engagement in which the president takes question on this. you all have reported on a wide variety of private meetings with individual members of congress. many of those meanings if not all of them have been characterized by a lot of q&a and give-and-take in settings involving a large number of members of congress but also one-on-one settings. the president hasn't been shy about his willingness to do q&a on this and i wouldn't rule out might do q&a with members of the general public. just. >> the white house is considering returning --

[inaudible] >> jeff, i am limited on what i can say on this matter. there are a couple things i can say. the united states and china regularly engaged law-enforcement matters of mutual concern including when it comes to fugitives and fighting corruption. through the u.s.-china joint leave on my enforcement cooperation. what u.s. law enforcement officials routinely emphasize is that it is incumbent upon them to provide u.s. officials with significant, clear and convincing evidence to allow our law-enforcement agencies to proceed with the investigation and prosecutions of fugitives. as we stated many times, the united states is not a safe haven for many country and the

facts against corruption don't stand up to the reality of our efforts. the united states is an international leader in anticorruption and we will continue to work across the globe to advance the fight against corruption. when it comes to the details of any particular case including the case of labeling chung. i'm not able to comment in any specific details. >> the president of china is coming to the united states. how does this issue as well as the other major irritations in the relationship like the hacking like the congressional and in the south china sea and

the fact that the visit and how you are prepared for it. >> well, there is news that listed a couple of irritants in the relationship between united states and china. the one that is most regularly cited as the law-enforcement action carried out by the department of justice a year or two ago to indict five chinese military officials for their actions in cyberspace. that is an irritant because the united states obviously has deep concerns about a cavities of those individuals on the chinese government expressed frustration and concern about the public one person action taken against five military officials. we have acknowledged these kinds of differences exist in a relationship. they carry over to other areas as well. we have raised concerns in the

past about our concern about china and sufficiently protect and property to say nothing of concerns about destabilizing activities in the south china sea. at the same time, the united states has been able to work effectively to advance the mutual interests of our country is. a couple good example on high-profile issues in the president traveled to china last fall president obama stood next to president xi announced historic steps to curb carbon pollution. i will remind you china was an active participant in the p5+1 negotiations alongside the united states and international partners to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. neither of those is an insignificant issue.

they have been able to work together in ways that we could make progress and that's an indication the u.s. engagement is useful in advancing the interest of the united states. it does mean it's worth preserving a constructive working relationship and is rooted to have the concert to with china that he's decided to invite president xi for a visit later this fall. no doubt even for all those areas where we can cooperate and will be dedicated to the differences that exist between our two countries.

[inaudible] >> i don't have any additional information on that. there has been extensive public attribution of some of those can turn inactions in cyberspace. i don't have any new information to share publicly today. april. >> i will ask one thing. is there irony of the fact that the anniversary thursday as the voting rights act and the first gop presidential debate and are not feeling -- [inaudible] one person's irony must be another person serendipity. maybe there'll be an an opportunity for republican candidates to discuss the importance of protect the rights of every eligible american who cast a vote and as consequential

as the upcoming presidential election. >> talking about restoration, 50 years ago with a problem to make sure that african-americans were able to vote. now there are different challenges. where does the president stand up the results to restoring the act? what parts do they want to bolster or what if you want to do? >> you have an opportunity to hear more on this later this week. the president has been concerned and dismayed by the significant amount of energy and effort expended almost exclusively by republicans to make it more difficult for eligible citizens to cast a ballot. the spirit of the country would reinforce the view that every

eligible american should have an opportunity to participate in the government and democracy. that is what motivates the presidency of the policy and why the president is marking the 50th anniversary of the historic piece of legislation. [inaudible] -- there was no reason for her to have been arrested. what is the white house feel about that. the department of justice continues to monitor the situation and text says and the global prosecutors continue to examine circumstances of this case but i don't have any additional information about federal action taken at this point.

>> can i follow quickly -- there is a question a couple weeks ago to essentially drop their concern or objection to flying confederate flags in military cemeteries. wondering if that is the strategy the white house could work. >> i'm not aware of any discussions between the white house and leaders in the house democratic caucus. but obviously the administration is interested in trying to make some progress on the voting rights act and we certainly have been in touch with members of congress in both parties and you heard the president speak forcefully about support for renewing the voting rights act and the speeches delivered this year. >> on puerto rico -- wondering

if you could talk about what the administration is doing to address the concerns exist regarding their debt obligations. i will reiterate we believe puerto rico is an orderly process to restructure a sustainable liability. unfortunately puerto rico challenges didn't begin overnight against the backdrop of economic challenges across the island. the president did establish a task force on puerto rico an interagency task force to leverage assistance to assist puerto rico's leaders as they confront significant financial challenges. the work of the task force and our ongoing commitment to

coordinating efforts continues. as i said before, there is no -- the administration does not envision a bailout, but were available federal assistance can be leveraged to assist the leaders of puerto rico. we stand ready to help. >> defense secretary carry a letter yesterday saying it was imperative for congress and the iaea for more than a week now. i know everything you've got to say about the ideal in your briefing of congress. i'm wondering about two specific questions. the first was last week you haven't had a chance to review which satisfied all the legal requirement.

and second is whether it would be legislation and the actual turnover to congress. >> i can say all of the available information that the administration has about the diplomatic effort to rent a rant from obtaining nuclear weapon has been turned over to congress and i believe that was done on july 19th or 20th, whatever that sunday was. said that his been completed and that was the presentation of those documents is that initiated the 60 day clock that congress has imposed for consideration of this agreement. what we vindicated is a willingness above and beyond documents required to be submitted.

i spent time briefing congress with experts responsible for negotiating the agreement in the first place and that is included detailed classified or he thinks about the content or nature and content of the agreement reached between iran and the iaea as it relates to the possible military dimension and a classified briefing has occurred for a large number of house members that i know there is a classified refrain for senators scheduled later this week. i also know the director general of the iaea is planning a series of meetings on capitol hill today as well. this is an indication that the administration desire for congress to understand as much as possible about the agreement so they can judge for themselves about the success we believe the

agreement will ensure to revenge iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. >> i haven't seen the proposal and the reason i say that in this case is it's not immediately obvious to me what sort of congressional action what sort of oversight congress would have over an agreement between iran and the iaea. i'm not sure exactly what impact the passing of legislation would have on agreement between iran and the iaea. you know what i mean? [inaudible] >> obviously, i guess i would refer to what i just said that we produce all of congress to consider the specific agreement and we followed a presentation

with extensive in-person briefings with responsibility for negotiating the agreement. those briefings have taken place in classified settings and one-on-one meetings. the briefings have also taken place in the general public under a four congressional committees in the house and senate. there are a variety of ways in which the information and briefings have taken place all in an effort to help members of congress understand exactly what is included. bob. >> josh, [inaudible] the republican candidate would republican candidate would neglect the president they will tear up this agreement. if in the end after the six-day review. if implemented comment that can make a man entered the agreement up? >> somebody could give you a more lawyerly answer than i can.

what i can explain to you as it would be foolish for a future president to do that primarily because this'll be an agreement implemented and will have an opportunity over the course of the next year and how to implement the agreement and verify iran's compliance with the agreement. keep in mind if iran doesn't comply with the agreement will tell because it's the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed, but if we detect iran is not abiding by the significant commitments they've made sanctions will snap back into place and we will preserve the international unanimity and iran and their nuclear program. that international unity would be completely gutted if another

president were to take office a year and a half and despite iran's compliance with the agreement were to unilaterally withdraw from that agreement. the other thing that strikes me as it is unclear what that would accomplish is a suggestion they would withdraw from the agreement and impose additional sanctions unilaterally on iran. the reason i would be foolish as we talked about the fact the reason that our sanctions regime was so successful and compelling iran to come to the negotiating table is that it required not just action by the united states but by coordinated action around the globe. not just among members of the p5+1 but other economies have close economic ties including india, south korea and japan. it is not at all obvious the united states unilaterally

withdraw from the agreement that we would have been expanding our success in persuading countries around the world to go along with us particularly over the last year at how we been able able to verify the agreement. keep in mind the compliance includes reducing nuclear dump of a 90 and this cannot mean centrifuges and essentially cutting the core of their heavy water plutonium reactor. so again the reason i would describe such an action is foolish if it is not at all clear what that would accomplish other than making a military confrontation in the middle east much more likely. >> is there anything in agreement that would bind a future president? >> i think binding comes in with the inherent, significant inherent value of preserving the

international coalition to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon in the coalition would be significantly undermined if the united states were to unilaterally withdraw. jim. [inaudible] >> that's correct. >> getting back to the question about the side agreements and the one that exists between the iaea and iran. the thrust of the concern as this would set a precedent that iran can say we've got this agreement and they don't have to comply with other parts of the deal. that seems to be the thrust of the concern. >> the first way i would confront a concern if there are is a precedent. the iaea has bilateral

agreements on the order of 180 countries around the world and those are agreements returning the iaea in individual countries the united states is aware of the agreement and we been willing to communicate the contents of the agreement and will do it in a classified setting that includes information related to nuclear proliferation -- secretary kerry -- >> administration does not have the tags. it is a tech shared between the iaea had a talk about his

information the iaea about the dimensions of iran's nuclear program in the united states and negotiating partners have made clear this deal, this broader agreement will not go forward until iran has complied with all the requests for information and access they need to write the report. that is why i would not describe this as a side agreement. this is an agreement directly between iran and the iaea. but we have made clear if any sanctions relief will not be provided by the international community and tell iran has complied with requests for information and access submitted by the iaea. >> they determine whether or not iran is complying with respect to part she. is that right?

the p5+1 has agreed to the interpretation of compliance that is acceptable and we are okay with that. >> the iaea is an organization of nuclear experts responsible for enforcing the non-proliferation treaty around the world. when we talk about the most intrusive inspections that were imposed, the survey conducted by the iaea and essentially the international community is coming in on behalf of the iaea and telling iran or mandating they must cooperate at every turn. they must cooperate when it comes to preparing the report about the military dimensions to account for past behavior. moving forward the international community is going to insist iran cooperate with inspectors responsible for verifying compliance with the agreement. they are also responsible for i might point out, a never-ending

commitment iran has now made to never develop a new way of weapon and that is why there will be permanent sanctions in place by iaea nuclear experts to verify iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and for too long iran has essentially given the iaea the runaround. the international community has come forward and said if you want relief from sanctions that are decimating impact you need to cooperate with the iaea access and information required to write about the military dimensions of the nuclear program in the past but also cooperate moving forward to verify you are developing a nuclear weapon. >> none of that is built into the sidecar whatever you want to call it. >> the reason i resist calling it a side agreement if it does not go forward unless iran performs and follows through on

commitments to provide information and access to write this report. sometimes they get lost. we set a deadline for the compliance and we've insisted iran provide access and information that over 15. if they don't, there won't be any forthcoming sanctions relief and the reason is we want the iaea to have information so they can complete their report before the end of the year. >> yesterday our colleague jc asked a question about comparison about american universe be and the president beach. do you like that comparison? what do you make of that comparison? ..

he had to make some concessions on part of a united states that there were commitment to the united states, there were elements of our nuclear program that were rolled back in the context of that diplomatic agreement with the soviet union in the early 1960s. in the context of this agreement you president obama was ended

and a diplomatic agreement with the international community with one of our adversaries to advance national security interest of the united states. here's the catch. that united states didn't have to make any concessions. there is no impact from this nuclear agreement on the united states and either under preprogrammed or our military programs. id and i think that speaks to the strength disagreement that the president was able to reach alongside the international committee in confronting iran's nuclear program. >> sundeck spent its comparison we welcome when it comes to this principle about -- [inaudible] >> principled, smart, tough diplomacy with our adversaries to advance national security interest of the united states. >> finally i'm sure to take so much time on a separate subject is the obama administration of anything in terms of oversight investigation, a call be made to look into what is being alleged

occurred inside the planned parenthood facilities? any activity whatsoever inside the administration or is the white house look at the cities and same these are selectively edited, doctor, whatever you want to call it edited in such such a way to indict planned parenthood unfairly, or is there concern about the sickest? >> you've heard me say a couple of times now including on your network that these are videos that were released for their shock value and they clearly are shocking. i think that's the reason he saw the president of planned parenthood apologize for the statements included on that video a day or two after the videos were released. >> i understand the they are health care facilities and does the administration have responsibly for oversight? >> for any questions but oversight of help to those whose i would defer you to hhs. >> immigration, ice has been an

issue for some time advocates among reform of immigration and apparently there seems to be some pushback whether not they want to cooperate with ice. the president and the presence program, dhs program to bring back those who have committed crimes. the i.c.e. have a credibility problem? because sometimes they have not frequently they have not followed what the administration wants to be doing. frequently they have deported people who were not criminals, that does not -- that is not administration policy as understand. is i.c.e. have a credibility problem? >> i think they're a variety of ways in which our broken immigration system has had a negative impact on the ability of law enforcement officials of

the federal and local level to do their job. the lack of clarity about the immigration policy in this country is why the president believes that reform is badly needed. and affect the president is strongly supportive of reforms to bring greater account of the to a broken immigration system. our broken immigration system has resulted in a lot of frustration being expressed by local law enforcement officers about the best way to protect the communities that they are sworn to serve and protect. there's also been frustration expressed i.c.e. officers, federal law enforcement officers, but how use their limited resources to try to both enforce the law but also to protect communities all across the country. that's why the president was a strong advocate of comprehensive immigration reform. the president told a strong bipartisan majority and that's why we were particularly disciplined republicans in the house of representatives block

passage of that compromise proposal because that compromise, comprehensive immigration reform proposal, maybe historic investment in border security and it would have greatly enhanced the available law enforcement resources to enforce the law and protect our community. that's what it's a shame tragedy and republicans in congress blocked comprehensive immigration reform. [inaudible] >> because of the efforts of house republicans to block comprehensive immigration reform but yes. >> deal with what's going on now. >> that's correct. >> it appears i.c.e. doesn't consistently follow what their bosses are telling them what to do. it's their problem. >> what the president has said and as a part of executive actions that he rolled up at the end of last year and essentially that was to pursue a policy at

dhs that would focus law enforcement resources on those individuals the possible significant threat to the public safety and national security. these are individuals for the record of committing violent crime, individuals who have known gang affiliations and even individuals who have repeatedly violated immigration law by crossing the border time and time again. those individuals were made a priority and those are the individuals that the administration believes should be the focus of law enforcement efforts and the focus of deportation efforts. [inaudible] -- there have been deportations of families, people who are not criminals, and at the same time criminals like the ones apparently in san francisco have not been deported. so is there not the emphasis you want, the administration wants, being carried through? >> i can't speak to individual

cases but the president and the sect if only they could have been very clear about what they believe is the most effective way for us to bring accountability to our broken immigration system. and that is to set the enforcement partners in the way i just described. but ultimately is responsible for law enforcement officers who are dealing with a very challenging environment with limited resources to try to enforce a fundamentally broken system. that's why it's such a shame even the tragedy that congress republicans blocked a solution to this problem and it's why the president has tried to impose a solution that would bring much-needed a candidate for broken immigratiimmigrati on system but also want even after taking that action we continue to urge congress to take the lives of action that is needed to finally address this. >> the u.s. a day -- "usa today" reports that as public shootings have increased once a year to about four and a half a year. and that some 33 people were

dying in the past every year and, that are dying now, and every year -- [inaudible] has the president, does the president have plans to reintroduce new gun control while he's still president, or has he given up? >> well, jim, i think it was indicated you the president conducted with the bbc shortly before departing for his trip to africa that expressed this was the inability of congress to take even commonsense steps that would make our communities more safe by keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have been. it's been a source of the biggest frustration of this president. there's been dozens of executive actions visit administration has taken to try to poke holes and fill some gaps. these are commonsense steps we can take without in any way

infringing upon the basic constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. is protected by the second amendment to the constitution. the fact is there are additional steps that congress could take that would protect those constitutional rights while at the same time protecting our communities, including those communities that are increasing home to the victims of gun violence. and again it's not just mass shootings that attract so much attention. it's even though shooting then become all too common and significant large urban areas all across the country saturday -- significant legislative initiative by the white house before president obama leaves office speak with what the princesspresident has made clear is he doesn't expect a change of heart incomes on this issue until the american public makes clear to members of congress that their decisions when it comes to

provisions that would reduce gun violence in this country are voting decisions that are going to be accounted for at the ballot box on election day. we've not yet seen that kind of significant outpouring of support from the american public, ma at least in a sufficient quantity to change the minds of individual members of congress. that ultimately is a key. there's no legislative strategy. there is to trick the legislative process that's going to change the outcome. the only thing that will change the outcome is a strong clear outpouring of public support from the american people. >> that means leaving it to the next president to deal with. >> well again, this is an issue the president will continue to advocate for but ultimately the way we will see the decisions that are made by members of congress changed is when we send them of the american public

change their mind, okay? chris. >> just a follow-up the president at this point has given -- [inaudible] in terms of practically advancing gun-control? >> at least when it comes to the the legislative process and to think the president has been clear for a couple of years now, but the way we're going to get the only way we can change the minds of members of congress is members of the american public make clear that this kind of decision are going to be taken into account when they're casting their ballot on election day. and we've not seen enough output of support from the american public to change many minds on capitol hill yet. sort of the present to be an advocate on this issue because he's very concerned about the impact it can violate this having on communities all across the country. those communities that surely have been the site of terribly tragic mass shootings but also those communities that are the subject of what are now

tragically routine incidence of gun violence. the president is concerned about this, continues been advocate for policies that will reduce gun violence, but again it will have successful legislative process it's going to be because members of congress change the minds on this issue. the only people have the authority or the power to change the minds of the members of congress are their constituents. >> yesterday when senator schumer was holding a press conference, he in addition to calling for new legislation called on the justice department to make recommendation on how states deal with mental health issues. this is something the president has discussed with him about folks isn't something the president would get behind? >> i have a look at the specific proposal. i'd be happy to take that question but i do know a number of executive actions that this administration announced almost two years ago included steps that would make sure that mental

health information is more effectively shared between medical professionals and law enforcement to again, try to do some commonsense things that would keep guns out of the hands of those individuals who shouldn't have them. >> senator schumer also said -- the iran nuclear deal. he is a key player in office, somebody who is widely respected and wonder how much conversation there's been you can shoot anything either the president chuck schumer or other members of the administration and chuck schumer keep in touch with of august issue spirit very close. i conducted an extensive conversations between senior administration officials and senator schumer that predate the completion of the comprehensive agreement that was announced a couple of weeks ago. this is an issue -- this is an issue that senator schumer takes very seriously. to his credit is studying disagree with and he obviously

takes his responsibility in this matter very seriously, and, and he has actually actively sought the input and a briefing and information from senior administration officials as it relates to this agreement. and the administration has readily engaged in those conversations okay? >> so far the same as only confirm five nominees the day getting ready to leave for a month so no more for a month to lease. is the present frustrated by the lack of confirmation of what is the white house doing if anything? >> the administration certainly is interested in seeing congress act faithfully to fulfill their responsibilities to advise and consent on a wide variety of administration nominees, not

just judicial nominees but even executive branch nominees as well. over the last seven months or so since republicans did this in the majority in the senate we have seen that process almost completely break down. even when it came to confirming someone like attorney general lynch, somebody with strong bipartisan support with impeccable credentials, it took, remember it took almost as long as the four or five previous attorneys general nominees combined to finally get her confirmation completed. we have on a number of occasions expressed our frustration about the inability of the united states senate to perform one of the most basic functions, which is to offer their advice and consent on administration nominees. [inaudible] >> i know there have been some conversations, if you will, on

this matter but i don't have details of those conversations to share. >> second question, coming up on the one year anniversary of the united states bombing the islamic state in iraq and syria. does the president-elect is a point at which the 2001 aumf can be used anymore -- can't be used anymore speak with i would say that in the proposed legislation the administration put forward several months ago, it included language that would repeal the 2002 aumf and aiming to be fine at 2001 aumf. the president has previously given speeches articulating the variety of concerns that he has with the overly broad nature in which the 2001 aumf was written and passed. there are a lot of logical

explanations for why that's the case but that's not a good explanation for why congress hasn't taken steps now to fix it. and the president has made very clear about what steps he believes is necessary to fix it. in fact, we've even submitted our own proposed legislative language to try to address some of those concerns. but the truth is we have run into a united states congressman seems very interested in discussing this issue but not actually doing anything on it. that has also been a source of some frustration for the administration. >> does the president believe when it was the 2001 aumf can be used anymore is there some scenario that says dod backed rebels into not being attacked, with the 2001 aumf not authorized airstrikes against people attacking dod revels in this area for examples because

we did talk about this album that yesterday, and it is true that there are syrian opposition fighters operating inside syria that have gone through the train equip operation that is run by dod and our coalition partners, and there's been one occasion where the opposition fighters came under fire from other extreme is that operating inside syria. and united states at our coalition partners to military action to protect those coalition trained, and that isolate fighters inside syria. the president and his lawyers have determined that the 2000 aumf does apply in that particular case. but i think you raise and i think that this administration has made, which is that there's a lot of clarity that could be derived with the congress following through come from

congress to try to put in place an anti-isil aumf. the administration engaged in lengthy and significant and extensive discussion of to and including the president of the united states to try to broker a compromise on the. we even put forward on paper our written proposal for how congress could take this action. but yet we have seen little other than one or two hearings on capitol hill. that's a disappointment and it represents a fundamental failure of the united states congress to perform one of the more important functions that they have. kevin. >> thanks josh. what is the president key message to jewish leaders today and how if at all does that message view from his broader message to the american? >> i think the president will deliver very clear his view that this diplomatic effort to put that iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is just the best way for us to put iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. it's also the best national students to both the united

states initiative. that's a pretty blunt direct case the principle that. he will reiterate that agreement is not based on trust but rather based on our ability to impose those intrusive set of inspections as a been conducted against the country's nuclear program and that's the case i think those most to you. you've heard the president make the case directly at least a couple times even in person. i can't predict at this point was to question the president is likely to get from the assembled group but sort of it comes to the president's opening presentation to go along the lines when i just described, along the lines of the kind of case that's very similar to those of you who have been following them closely. >> the iaea and inspection that might happen, even some of these contested sites, are americans allowed to be a part of the iaea inspection group in any case of is that prohibited?

>> kevin, u.s. officials would not be part of the inspection team because of the united states does not have diplomatic relations with iran. but there certainly are americans at the iaea and that organization more probably will be responsible for conducting these inspections will be iran's responsibility to meet the expectations that the iaea has or the agreement will fall apart and lucy sanctions is a snap back into place or sanctions relief not even start because as i mentioned earlier iran has to comply with the iaea's request for access information so they can put the report about a possible military dimensions before any sanctions relief is even offered in the first place. iranian's complies with the iaea's request for access and information are necessary before any sort of sanctions relief is offered. >> lastly, far be it from me to lean on a brilliant great and john olver. you mentioned voting rights. what about the voting rights of

the nearly 700,000 americans that live here in the district? >> well -- >> is there anything you all can do, willing to do for the people in washington, d.c. can vote? >> kevin the president has strong articulated his support for home rule in washington, and there does appear to be a desire of president to exercise more control over the management of the district and the management of their immunity. too often was in congress interfere in those efforts and that was the president strongly opposes. sat next to that would be a decision we've support the residents of the district making for themselves. okay? susan. [inaudible] -- trade talks in doing days ago with a 10 euro progress. [inaudible]

>> susan, what we've made clear is that the president is not going to accept an agreement that is included in the best interest of middle-class families in the united states. or he also will not accept an agreement that is the code in the best interest of the national security of the united states. the present has set a pretty high bar to what is acceptable when it comes to filing agreement that he's willing to sign onto. that means that our negotiators been sitting around the table with 11 or 12 other countries that are part of these discussions are driving a pretty hard-working and was not particularly surprising to me that efforts to reach a final agreement are taking a little bit more time than originally expected. that simply because our negotiators have been given instructions by the president of what is acceptable and what's not. so ultimately the president is much less worried about dyslexia much more worried about the impact of what a good trade

agreement would have on the country. the president franklin is not willing to sign onto that. >> on the reuters report recently, yesterday afternoon talked to numerous people at the state department and found that there was some, according to the report, frank politics with the human trafficking report that came out july 27. and there's going to be hearing on thursday in the senate foreign relations committee senator menendez and others are very concerned about the accusations of playing politics with it modern slavery poor prostitution report. can you address those concerns? and put to rest any suggestions there was politics at play? because with relation to the two issues. >> i would refer you to the

state department to this is a process that was run by the state department and they can speak to the process that is used to publish this reporter i know what the goal was and their goal is to offer up a detailed assessment of with a foreign government, or with a foreign government efforts to comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons that the united states established your so the department at the state department in this case, strives to make the report is has acted as possible document the successes and shortcomings of other governments antitrafficking efforts. so that was the ultimate goal of the report and that is what the findings revealed is the conclusion that was drawn or that was yielded this is policymaking process at the state department but this is a process that is limited to the state department so i will ask you to ask them spent definitively the white house did not have any role to play in

that report in influencing whether it related to whether china got a better great? >> this is a process that's been the white house was very respectful of the ongoing policy processed at the state department for publishing this report. >> i don't know if this is the report of the wind is the one is going to do, what is the president going to do -- [inaudible] spent the president did over the previous weekend did get to spend some time on the golf course at camp david with some of his friends. i read in other additional details about what may or may not be in store for today. >> josh, president obama and vice president biden were having lunch today. i assume it's over. is lunch at a time when speculation is at a fever pitch and weather vice president biden will decide to run for president.

is this irony or serendipity? [laughter] >> in this case mark, it's serendipity. the president and vice president routinely have lunch together about once a week and there's reason for only two place settings at the table, which is its unique opportunity for them to talk privately about whatever happens to be on their minds. and so i don't have a good sense about what exactly what was discussed in their lunch. i suspect they covered a variety of topics. some personal, some public as they relate to ongoing debates and i wouldn't be surprised if it was maybe even some politics discussed. but i don't have any insight to share some. >> again, i don't know whether or not i don't have any insight into the vice president current thinking on this particular matter. but again the president and the

vice president had the kind of relationship where they speak pretty candidly with one another knowing that that information will remain private. fred. >> josh -- [inaudible] martin o'malley has said that he's going to be advocating for constitutional amendments to guarantee the right to vote for everyone. that has sort of overcast all these ideologues and so forth is that something the president and the administration could ever support speak with i haven't seen his specific proposal but obviously i constitutional amendment along those lines is something consistent with the values and priorities the president has discussed. quite powerfully in the speeches he delivered in selma, alabama earlier this year. our efforts however have not been focused on a constitutional

amendment giving congress to walk the walk when it comes to their expressions of support for the value and liberty of individual americans. and that is past the renewal of the voting rights act. [inaudible] >> is this is something that you would receive the president speaking up for, championing the chuck schumer to speak with i haven't seen the specifics of senator schumer's bill. scott, did you have your hand up speak was just. president kennedy talked about v-day. not demonizing the soviets -- [inaudible] should we expect to some echoes of that with reference to iran from the president of our? >> the relationship between the united states and the rent is different from the relationship

between the united states and the soviet union back in the early 60s. what they have in common is that both countries were clearly adversaries of the united states. that the president has also been cleared in his dealings with iran he's been unwilling to rely on any trust with the iranian leadership in fact the president has said his approach to the situation has been to distrust and verify. that's why this deal would not have gone forward have iran not agreed to cooperate with the most intrusive set of inspections that ever been imposed on the country. and the reason for that is that this agreement requires iran to make some significant commitment including things like reducing their giving stockpile by 90%. disconnecting 13,000 centrifuges and essentially gutting the core of their plutonium reactor. these are all significant